|
Post by Steve Noel on Dec 14, 2008 23:03:01 GMT -5
As I listened to the Refining Fire broadcast today something was made clear which I had already suspected. Many of the people who believe in original sin have not really thought too deeply about it. I think most people simply think it's too obvious to even have to think about. Thus, when confronted with an alternate understanding of the texts usually used to support original sin they don't have much to say. I find it difficult to even get people to discuss the topic seriously because they feel it is so self-evident. I still believe in original sin, but I'm not so sure that some of the texts used as "proof" of it are very persuasive. I'm looking forward to the debate on the program next week.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 15, 2008 1:57:29 GMT -5
Hi Steve,
I've noticed that too. I have to admit I was the same way and had never even questioned the doctrine.
I'd like to know which verses you believe prove original sin. Are there many? Do you have a list? Also what version of original sin you believe in? That is, how do you define it, how does it work, why did God "allow" it, etc.
It would be nice to hear it from someone who doesn't just resort to contentiousness. I'm looking forward to the debate too. I hope it covers the arguments from both sides thoroughly (as much as time allows).
Thanks, Ben
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Dec 15, 2008 4:38:51 GMT -5
What does Romans has to say about the disobedience of only one (Adam)
and the obedience of only one (Jesus , the new Adam , the beginning and the Head of a new creation)
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 15, 2008 9:14:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Dec 15, 2008 11:35:47 GMT -5
Ben, I'm not really prepared to give a spirited defense of original sin. It's something I'm working through at this time. I do think there are some things in Scripture that point in that direction that I've not really heard talked about on here. Right now I'm not fully convinced by some or the arguments I've heard for or against it. That being said, there's no point giving my opinion at this time because I can't give it with much conviction. Tyler, Thanks for that list. I'll have to get around to it somethime Steve
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 15, 2008 12:33:23 GMT -5
What does Romans has to say about the disobedience of only one (Adam) and the obedience of only one (Jesus , the new Adam , the beginning and the Head of a new creation) Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.notice the word ''as by'' & "so by" This is a comparison of the two. I put brackets to for better understanding; Just as through the one mans disobedience, [in like manner of disobedience] the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, [in like manner of obedience] so shall the many be made righteous.It must be this way, otherwise you get universal salvation. If the many were made sinners involuntarily without choice, the many must be made righteous involuntarily without choice.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 15, 2008 14:01:26 GMT -5
I agree with you Steve. The doctrine of "original sin" is usually always taken for granted, and therefore it is never carefully examined. When this doctrine is challenged, its proponents do not know how to respond to the alternative view, or to the critiques of their own view, because it is so rarely openly discussed and challenged. It is sort of the "untouchable" doctrine. That is why so few know how to handle any opposition to it.
Whatever we believe, we should be able to abundantly support reasonably and scripturally. And whatever we reject, we should be able to give reasonable and scriptural support for our rejection.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 15, 2008 14:04:56 GMT -5
“For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Romans 5:19:
A. If we are going to apply the first section of the passage unconditionally and universally, we must also apply the second section of the passage unconditionally and universally, since the language for both is the same. If the first section means mankind is universally and unconditionally condemned in Adam, then the second section would mean that mankind is universally and unconditionally justified through Jesus.
B. By Adam’s disobedience of eating from the tree, Adam provided all mankind with the opportunity of choosing to be sinners, since moral knowledge has been granted to all men. A sinner is an individual who voluntarily chooses contrary to their moral knowledge.
C. By Christ’s obedience of hanging on the tree, Christ has provided all mankind with the opportunity of choosing to be saved, since remission of sin has been offered to all men upon condition of their repentance and faith.
D. The word “made” used in these passages is not referring to a constitutional change, but referring to a conditional position which requires the consent of the will. Being a sinner is conditional upon choosing to sin. Likewise, being justified is conditional upon choosing to repent and believe.
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Dec 15, 2008 22:16:29 GMT -5
You are right Steve, I find over and again that people just react when challenged about a doctrine that they have just accepted without really examining it thoroughly.
The lady who called and was not reasonable in her discussion about this issue has emailed me and continued the personal attacks against us. I have proposed a debate with her after the NewYear, I hope she will accept. She is just starting a blogtalkradio channel herself.
When asked about her thoughts about Ez 18, she gave a dispensational brush off.
If I remember correctly Kerrigan gave her the chapter and verse she was trying to use; Rom 5:12 then Jesse gave her Rom 9:11 she began to attack us personally and is still calling us liars, lost, and proud men that won't believe the Bible.
I look forward to hearing the debate also. I'm thinking it will cause no small stir. Amen! ;D
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Dec 15, 2008 22:26:26 GMT -5
The list tbxi posted is a 'good' Calvinist list, but none of those verses prove original sin, they only prove that we all sin and that God will hold us accountable for the same.
I watched a video today on original sin and they used Gen 5:3 as a proof for original sin because Seth was made in Adam's fallen image(pre supposition)
And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
So I thought I would look up a few scriptures about this 'image of God vs. Adam' situation. I will post them here and let you draw your own conclusions. You can see some passages that seem to support and others that seem to detract from this understanding.
Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.
•Ps 106:19-21 They made a calf in Horeb, And worshiped the molded image. Thus they changed their glory Into the image of an ox that eats grass. They forgot God their Savior, Who had done great things in Egypt,
•1 Cor 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
•1 Cor 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.
•2 Cor 3:17-18 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.
•Col 3:9-11 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Dec 15, 2008 22:27:23 GMT -5
Whatever we believe, we should be able to abundantly support reasonably and scripturally. And whatever we reject, we should be able to give reasonable and scriptural support for our rejection. Amen!
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Dec 16, 2008 2:10:51 GMT -5
If I may, I’d like to say a few words regarding original sin. I hope that you will read my post in sincerity as I have read and made efforts to understand the views espoused here and elsewhere on these boards. There are currently many threads discussing this topic, so I hope it is appropriate to make this post here...
I’d like to start by stating what original sin (and sin in general) is not. Sin is not a physical substance, and it is not even a spiritual “substance” (for lack of a better term). All personal sins are moral choices, and these choices have numerous consequences including spiritual separation from God and separation from the body of Christ, the church. When man is forgiven of his sins, he stands before God in a state of righteousness.
From the beginning, man was created “good.” But even more than that, man was established in friendship and right-standing (i.e. righteousness) with God. He was in harmony with himself, he was in harmony with his fellow man (i.e. Eve), and he was in harmony with all of creation. This three-fold harmony can be thought of as the “state of original holiness and justice.” As long as man remained in this intended intimacy with God, every dimension of man’s life would be confirmed, and he would remain in righteous standing before his Creator.
When Adam was tempted by the serpent, he let his trust in God die, and he abused his freedom by disobeying God’s command. On that day, Adam committed a personal sin which removed him from his righteous stance before God and removed from him the three-fold harmony described earlier (see Genesis 3:7-17). As a result, he was no longer capable of exercising the soul’s spiritual dominion over the body; his interpersonal relationships were subject to tension, lust, and domination; and he could no longer tend the rest of creation as he once did. The final consequence, of course, was death.
Now, I believe, it is possible to discuss what is proper to “original sin.” The doctrine of original sin, properly understood, does not imply that we inherit Adam’s sin as a type of “stuff”, either physical or spiritual. In fact, “original sin” is “sin” only in an analogical sense. It is a “state” or “condition” and not a committed act. The result is that “original sin” is not to be understood as a personal fault, but as deprivation of the “original holiness and justice” that was described above. It is impossible to deny the fact that we inherit these conditions of death, as testified to (in part) by the consequences described above and the universality of sin.
To put it another way, “original sin” describes the human condition which became common to the natural man as a result of Adam’s personal sin. Man that is merely born of the will of the flesh does not possess an inherent right to become a child of God (i.e. he is not in a state of original holiness and justice); but he must rather be born of the Spirit of God. Only then is the natural man lifted from his condition of death (which is the condition of all men born of the first Adam) to the condition of life (the condition of the new Adam).
Rather than making a post that is entirely too long, I will wait for a response to these very few points that I have noted. Hopefully we can take it from there and have some fruitful discussion.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 12:35:56 GMT -5
Hi Frank, This statement does not sound right to me. It logically leads to Adam being incapable of obeying God and anyone born into this "state" also incapable. I don't think that's scriptural. If we had disabled souls, minds, hearts, or bodies then we would not be fully to blame for our sin, which, as I understand it, we are.
|
|
kenm
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by kenm on Dec 16, 2008 13:03:18 GMT -5
I recently sat down and talked with my Pastor on the subject of original sin. I had cut and pasted many of the articles by Jesse and others and I printed it out and gave it to him to look over. He said that he had never really looked at it from this viewpoint. I have heard him preach free will and that sin is a choice but I had also heard him refer to a fallen nature, so I asked what he meant. After reading the verses that do not support original sin or a flawed nature he agreed with the view that was presented. I asked him the question about being born sinful and being born gay. He said yes to born sinful and no to being born gay. Once I asked him by that reason wouldn't it be possible to be born gay he understood what is trying to be brought out, because he knows Biblically there is no way to be born a Homosexual.
I do not think that most Christians know what they believe when it comes to Original Sin but I do know that those that do not understand will be quick to call you a heretic just because you say they need to live as Jesus commanded.
To take away the doctrine of original sin takes away the last excuse some Christians make for their sin. That is why some get so upset, not because you are teaching something that is not Biblical but they are being confronted with their sin that they have no justification for committing.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 13:23:17 GMT -5
Excellent point. Your pastor sounds like an honest man. When I was finally convinced of free will it was still murky because I assumed I had a sinful nature but it was still very convicting to admit free will. A sinful nature really is that last possible excuse for not walking as the Lord Jesus walked. Since the command is to love God with all of your heart, all of your soul, and all of your mind, well, that means that the heart, soul, and mind are capable of doing those things. The only thing left to get in the way is our own choice.
The only thing I don't understand is what about children who grow up in wicked environments and are taught to live sinful lives? When will God begin to hold them accountable? At the same age as someone who grew up with godly parents? Obviously blaming our parents is not the right idea but can't children be traumatized by different experiences or situations?
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Dec 16, 2008 13:54:17 GMT -5
Hi Frank, This statement does not sound right to me. It logically leads to Adam being incapable of obeying God and anyone born into this "state" also incapable. I don't think that's scriptural. If we had disabled souls, minds, hearts, or bodies then we would not be fully to blame for our sin, which, as I understand it, we are. I suppose the first part of my original statement that you object to would be better phrased as: "he was no longer capable of exercising the soul's perfect spiritual dominion over the body..." If you also object to the second part of the above statement about the consequences of Adam's sin with regard to interpersonal relationships, I would direct you to Genesis 3:16. The damage done to the three-fold harmony I described in my previous post is illustrated additionally in 1 John 2:16 where the apostle outlines a triple concupiscence, or inclination toward evil. This is not to say that human nature is totally corrupted, but the consequences that I've outlined are undeniably part of the human experience. But this is not to say that the temptations themselves constitute personal sin. They are, however, the resultant consequence of Adam's personal sin, by which death gained a certain dominion over the human race. Looking beyond the distorted hyper-calvinistic understanding of original sin, I hope it becomes clearer that holding to the doctrine does not "logically lead to Adam being incapable of obeying God and anyone born into this "state" also incapable." Free will is not lost in the fall.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 16, 2008 14:20:23 GMT -5
There is no doubt that Adam's original sin has had major impacts upon his descendants:
1. He ate from the tree of knowledge. Our eyes have been opened. 2. We have been removed from the Garden and the tree of life.
Because of the former, we have been put in the position where we have chosen to be sinners. Because of the latter, we have been subjected to disease and death.
I object to the term "original sin" or "sinful nature" in regards to what we inherit from Adam, because what we inherit from Adam is not sin nor sinfulness. Sin or sinfulness has to do with choices and cannot be inherited. It is not a sin to inherit open eyes and it is not sinfulness to inherit a body subjected to disease and death.
This is what I object to:
1. That Adam lost the free will God gave to mankind 2. That we inherit from Adam a nature or body that is itself sinful 3. That we are punished for Adam's sin 4. That we are guilty of Adam's sin 5. That we participated in Adam's sin 6. That we are accountable or responsible for Adam's sin 7. That we are born under the wrath of God for Adam's sin 8. That babies should be baptized for Adam's sin 9. That babies who die in infancy go to hell for Adam's sin 10. That we need Jesus Christ to be saved from hell for Adam's sin 11. That Jesus was born of a virgin to avoid the original sin transmitted through semen 12. That sin and righteousness are not states of the will but are states of the constitution 13. That we are born incapable of obeying God 14. That sin is some sort of stuff (physical or spiritual) inside of us 15. That sin does not consist solely in the wills choice to violate God's law. 16. That we inherit some original sin that necessitates the choices of our will, something that is behind our will determining it's choices. 17. That the appetites and desires of our body are in themselves sinful, and because we inherit these sinful passions, we are born sinners under God's wrath 18. That we are born sinners 19. That we are born morally depraved 20. That a person is a sinner before they choose to commit sin 21 That God is not actively and personally involved in the forming of babies in the womb 22. That the image of God in mankind was lost in Adam's sin
These, and other views, have been taught throughout Church history by Augustinians, Calvinists, and Arminians under the doctrine of "original sin". I object to all 22 of these points.
A person is held accountable when they know right from wrong. This age of accountability differs between individuals. Those raised by Christian families will reach that age before those raised in non-Christian homes.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 18:07:14 GMT -5
Does that mean that it became impossible for him to perfectly control himself? What percent of the time could he control himself before and after?Are you saying that God subjected Adam's relationships to tension, lust, and domination? Is man's authority over woman part of this three-fold corruption?Inclination by personal choice or inclination by birth?'Experience' sounds vague. Is anyone forced to lust with their eyes? Did the Lord Jesus posses these three sinful 'experiences'?Temptation is a result of Adam's sin? What about the devil? Was Adam himself tempted? Was Jesus only able to be tempted as a result of Adam? Does temptation (inherited or not) lead to a certain dominion of death (physical or spiritual)?It sounds like you think it was obscured or weakened in some way. I think the will is either free or not in regards to sin.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 18:13:21 GMT -5
What does it mean that he knew good and evil like God? And what was different about Adam before his eyes were opened? I would think he had to know right from wrong in order to sin originally.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 16, 2008 18:25:53 GMT -5
Adam always knew it was wrong to disobey God.
But Adam didn't know that he should have clothes on, etc.
His eyes were opened to a more exhaustive understanding of right and wrong.
He went from a state of moral ignorance to a state of moral enlightenment. Therefore His moral obligation and responsibility increased.
Since we inherit this knowledge, we have ample opportunity to become sinners. Adam's disobedience, by eating from the tree, has given us the opportunity of becoming sinners.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 18:50:47 GMT -5
Do you think that is also what happened when the law was given and since Jesus has fully shown us what loving God and our neighbor means? Has the bar been raised more than once? Is that why it says God overlooked certain things in the time of ignorance?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 18:52:09 GMT -5
sorry, that last question might be getting a bit off topic
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Dec 16, 2008 21:31:58 GMT -5
I do not completely understand what you mean by “control himself.” When I say that man is unable to exercise the soul’s perfect spiritual dominion over the body I am merely echoing the sentiments of Paul in Romans 7. Man finds himself with an inner tension as a result of his natural condition (i.e. the condition he inherits from flesh and blood). You can note that Paul refers to his “inmost self” in verse 22. This “inmost self” refers to his spiritual faculty which, as a result of the fall, wars against the law of sin and death in his members.
Does this in any way excuse personal sin as an act of choice? No, it does not. Paul offers no excuse for sin and neither do I.
If you’re interested, I suggest checking out John Chrysostom’s Homily 13 on Romans 7.
Oh… I’d say about 14.86% of the time. (<--Just kidding. I think I clarified my position above.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. -Genesis 1:27
So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed. -Genesis 2:21-24
To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” -Genesis 3:16
I think the contrast shown above is undeniable. There is an obvious change in relation between the man and the woman as a result of the first sin.
Man and woman were created with equal human dignity as respective male and female. Both sexes possess equal dignity because both are created in the image of God. As God is not in the image of man, we must conclude that the respective perfections of male and female are reflective of the infinite perfection that is found in God.
That being said, man and woman were made for each other. Each sex possesses unique vocations with respect to the other that are ordained by God in his infinite wisdom. Any properly exercised authority which is ordained by God is not corruption.
The inclination as described is a disordered tendency toward sin. I am speaking here of temptation that is present from birth.
Perhaps my original statement was unclear. The triple concupiscence that I referred to as common to human experience is temptation. They are not “sinful experiences” in and of themselves, but symptoms of a fallen human condition.
I refer you to the answer I gave to your first question. The inner tension that is common to the natural man between his “inmost self” and the “law of sin which dwells in [his] members” is a result of original sin. Temptation from without (i.e. from the devil) was present before Adam’s sin.
Yes, the devil is a tempter.
Yes, Adam was tempted by the devil.
Adam was tempted by the devil. Had he not succumbed to this temptation, and had he not let his trust in God die, he would not have sinned as he did. Death gained dominion through sin, not through temptation.
Again... free will was not lost in the fall. I have written nothing to suggest that personal sin is mitigated due to original sin.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 16, 2008 22:03:58 GMT -5
Hey Frank...maybe I am missing something, but I fail to see a change in the relationship between Adam and Eve after they sinned. Are you suggesting that Eve was not subject to Adam before they sinned? Also, regarding Romans 7 and its relation to Adam and Eve's sin, where do you see them mentioned in Romans 7? I understand that Paul had to fight inner temptation and that there was a struggle because of that inner temptation...but where does it mention in Romans 7 that this was a result of Adam and Eve's sin? By the way, have you recently changed your view, because this isn't what I remember you believing before? Thanks...
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 22:06:34 GMT -5
Control is just another way of saying exercising dominion. Self control is exercising dominion over your self (body, mind, emotions, etc.) My question is this: Is man able to control himself or not?
|
|
kenm
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by kenm on Dec 16, 2008 22:22:06 GMT -5
[/quote] Self control is exercising dominion over your self (body, mind, emotions, etc.) My question is this: Is man able to control himself or not? [/quote]
If not we could not sentence anyone to prison because they are not responsible for the crime they committed.
Wait!, maybe this is why so many are getting off on the insanity plea. Could it be that we are all just legally insane and not responsible for anything we do? ;D
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2008 22:41:05 GMT -5
yeah, basically. that's what I used to tell myself because I loved sin
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 16, 2008 22:55:23 GMT -5
I like that Ken. I think that I will use that in the open air sometime soon when someone uses the, "I can't stop sinning, I was born this way"...I'm going to tell them that saying such a thing is insane and you can't plea insanity on Judgment Day! ;D
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Dec 16, 2008 23:53:47 GMT -5
I am absolutely suggesting that a change occurred in terms of the relationship enjoyed between Adam and Eve after they sinned, but I am not necessarily suggesting that Eve was in no way subject to Adam prior to the fall. As I mentioned before, both sexes were created in God's images, and, consequently, both have equal dignity. However, male and female are to assume different vocations as ordained by God in his infitite wisdom.
Scripture does not present us with an extremely detailed account of the pre-fall relations enjoyed between the first man and woman, but we are given an account of the consequences of the first sin in Genesis 3:14-19 - including the fact that the woman's desire shall now be for her husband, and that the man shall now rule over her.
This is an historical reading of the text, and I would refer you to Chrysostom's Homily 9 on 1 Timothy (as one example) for a better and more detailed explanation than I could possibly begin to offer.
No, Adam and Eve are not mentioned by name in Romans 7, but once again, I am only presenting an historical take on the natural human condition which can only be renewed in Christ. The inner temptation faced by man is a result of the law of sin that dwells in his members (Rom 7:23) even though he may delight in the law of God in his inmost self (v. 22). In Romans 7, Paul recognizes that the natural man is not perfect, and that he will only be delivered from the body of death (i.e. the law of sin in his members) by Jesus Christ. Death, of course, entered by the sin of one man (Rom 5:12), and that trespass brought condemnation to all (Rom 5:16). What was that condemnation? As I've already implied above, it consisted of subjecting all of creation to futility and bondage to decay (Rom 8:19,20). This explicit reference in Romans 8 is without a doubt referring to the condemnation issued by God in Genesis 3.
So, no... Paul does not mention Adam or Eve by name in Romans 7, but it is hardly a stretch to speak of them given the contextual place between Romans 5 and 8.
Nope... I've always accepted the doctrine, I've never been a Calvinist, and I have never used "original sin" to excuse my personal accountability.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case, I answered this question in Response #22 of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 17, 2008 10:22:36 GMT -5
I am absolutely suggesting that a change occurred in terms of the relationship enjoyed between Adam and Eve after they sinned, but I am not necessarily suggesting that Eve was in no way subject to Adam prior to the fall. As I mentioned before, both sexes were created in God's images, and, consequently, both have equal dignity. However, male and female are to assume different vocations as ordained by God in his infitite wisdom. Scripture does not present us with an extremely detailed account of the pre-fall relations enjoyed between the first man and woman, but we are given an account of the consequences of the first sin in Genesis 3:14-19 - including the fact that the woman's desire shall now be for her husband, and that the man shall now rule over her. This is an historical reading of the text, and I would refer you to Chrysostom's Homily 9 on 1 Timothy (as one example) for a better and more detailed explanation than I could possibly begin to offer. Sorry brother, I'm still not seeing it. Just because God states that Eve's desire would be for her husband and that he would rule over her, doesn't mean it wasn't exactly that way before they both sinned. In fact, the only explicit punishment that I see for Eve in Genesis 3:16 is: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children." As you have said, we have no account of their relations before they sinned, so you seem to be arguing from silence. By the way, what do you mean by "this is a historical reading of the text"? Do you mean that because Chrysostom saw things this way and that because he was from the late 4th century, that it is the correct reading of the text? Once again, you are using that phrase "historical" take on this passage. First, what proof do you have that this "take" is "historical" and secondly, even if it was, does that prove that it is true? The question isn't whether Paul had temptations coming from within or not. The question is not who can deliver him from these temptations or help him overcome them. The question is, how did they get there in the first place? That is one answer that you will not find in the text of Romans 7 itself... Actually according to Romans 5:12, death entered into the world, since there was no sin in the world up to that point. And Romans 5:12 is not talking about physical death. It is talking about spiritual death or separation from God due to personal, willful transgression. As far as Romans 5:16 is concerned, the word "all" isn't mentioned in that verse even once. Did you just add the word to it? Even if you do add the word "all" to that verse, you must then, in order to use sound hermeneutics add "all" to the second part of that verse...which leads us to universalism. I'm sure that you don't agree with that! However, I DO agree that one of the results of Adam and Eve's sin was physical death, disease, corruption, decay, etc. for ALL. That is talked about in the consequences of Genesis 3 as in Romans 8 and in other passages. I strongly disagree. Nowhere in Romans 7 does it discuss Adam, Eve, the Fall, Paul's birth or the rest of the human race being born this way. It simply speaks of Paul's condition before he became a Christian. To add to what it says is to force something upon the text and interpret it with a predisposed bias or belief.
|
|